Kejriwal, Mamata, and the Courtroom Circus: When Politicians Turn Judges Into Props
The sight of Arvind Kejriwal standing in court, arguing his own case and alleging judicial bias, is not just a legal moment. It is a political signal. It tells you that the courtroom is no longer just a place where law is interpreted. It is now a stage where narratives are built, amplified, and sold. And he is not alone. Mamata Banerjee has done it before in her own way, confronting institutions and turning legal battles into public spectacles. What we are witnessing is not coincidence. It is a pattern.
From Courtroom to Camera Room
Courtrooms used to be spaces where arguments were made for judges, not for headlines. That line is now fading. When politicians appear personally, every word is crafted not just for the bench, but for the cameras waiting outside. A single allegation inside court becomes a primetime debate within minutes. The legal argument becomes secondary. The visual of a Chief Minister taking on the system becomes the story. It is no longer about convincing the judge. It is about convincing the public.
Alleging Bias Without Consequence
The most striking part of this trend is the ease with which allegations like “judicial bias” are thrown into the record. These are not small claims. They directly question the credibility of the institution. And yet, when powerful politicians make them, the consequences are minimal in the moment. Now imagine a common litigant attempting the same. The tone would change instantly. The patience would wear thin. The word “contempt” would not be far behind. The law claims equality, but the courtroom reveals a hierarchy of tolerance.
The Judiciary as an Unwilling Stage
Judges are placed in an impossible position. They cannot step into the media arena to defend themselves. They cannot engage in public rebuttals. Their only response is through orders that come much later. In that silence, the narrative is already set. Politicians get to question, insinuate, and dramatize in real time, while the judiciary is forced to absorb it quietly. The courtroom, intended to be a neutral space, becomes an asymmetric battlefield.
Optics Over Outcomes
What matters more today is not what the court eventually decides, but what is said during the hearing. Even if a plea is dismissed, the political objective may already be achieved. Headlines have been generated. Supporters have been mobilized. Doubts about institutions have been planted. The legal loss becomes irrelevant when the narrative victory is secured. The courtroom has become a means to an end, not the end itself.
A Pattern, Not an Exception
This is not about one leader or one party. It is an evolving political playbook. Today it is Arvind Kejriwal. Yesterday it was Mamata Banerjee. Tomorrow it could very well be Rahul Gandhi or anyone else facing legal pressure. The message is clear. If the courtroom offers visibility, it will be used. If it offers a chance to challenge institutions publicly, it will be exploited.
Judiciary’s Dangerous Leniency
But this trend does not survive on political ambition alone. It is enabled by judicial restraint that sometimes borders on excessive tolerance. Courts may believe they are upholding fairness by allowing full expression. But in doing so, they risk allowing their own platform to be stretched into something it was never meant to be. When high-profile litigants are given extended leeway, it sends a signal. Not of strength, but of hesitation.
Two Systems Inside One Courtroom
This is where the contradiction becomes impossible to ignore. For the powerful, the courtroom is flexible. It accommodates rhetoric, allows space, absorbs allegations. For the ordinary citizen, it remains rigid. Words must be measured. Tone must be controlled. Boundaries must not be crossed. The same institution operates with two different thresholds depending on who stands before it. That is not just a legal issue. It is a credibility crisis.
The Slippery Slope Ahead
If this continues, the consequences will not be limited to a few dramatic hearings. Every adverse order will be labelled biased. Every judge will be scrutinized for perceived affiliations. Every case involving a political figure will carry an added layer of suspicion. The authority of the judiciary does not collapse overnight. It erodes slowly, through repeated public questioning that goes unanswered in real time.
The Real Casualty – Public Trust
In the end, the biggest victim is not the judge or the politician. It is public faith. Courts derive their strength not from force, but from belief. The belief that they are fair, neutral, and above politics. When courtrooms start looking like extensions of political battles, that belief weakens. And once lost, it is far harder to rebuild than any legal precedent.
In India’s courtrooms today, justice is still delivered, but increasingly, it is also being performed. And the line between the two is beginning to disappear.
